My Impeachment Poll

[MrScorpio]

I'd like to make some perfectly clear... I do not totally object to impeachment, I just think that an immediate action to impeach is like putting the cart before the horse. A lot of things have to happen first, such as oversight hearings and subsequent investigations. Former insiders are going to have to blow their whistles and supporting documents are going to have to be discovered. All this has to happen as the Congress works on all other non-impeachment related legislation. Important work cannot come to a screeching stop.

Another point is that the general public is going to have to be convinced in supporting this. Bush must be tried in the court of public opinion, as an unpopular war lingers on.

All of this takes time, and while lives are being lost, the wheels of government will do their requisites turns.

A few of you think that it is a good idea to conduct impeachment for political gain. I find that attitude completely ABHORRENT! That was the primary motivation for the Republicans when they impeached President Clinton. Such an attitude shows complete disrespect for the office of the president, regardless of the holder.

IMPEACHMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT POLITICS. Politicizing the crimes of Bush undercuts our credibility with those whose support we need, as in those Republicans who's votes are needed for success. Any evidence must be based on incontrovertible and empirical facts. The last thing we need is to made to look like this is nothing but Democratic payback. The goal must be to show that am impeachment of Bush is based on it's OWN merits. Anything less than that is asking for big trouble.

A trial in the Senate will be like a crucible, burning away any political detritus. It'll be long and arduous.

Frankly, I'd rather it be done correctly and for the most honorable of reasons, for the good of the country.

So my question is this: Do you support impeachment as a first priority, or should the first priority be as Democratic Party leaders have stated and that is to get the Congress back to work?

Choice one means that it should happen regardless.

Choice two means that it may or may not lead toward a strong effort toward impeachment, and after an exhaustive effort to sway even more in the court of public opinion.

Choice three means that you totally object to impeachment.

Have fun

[bridgit]

1. O&I 1st...

[Jamastiene]

2. O & I first to prolong their agony and humiliation.

:evilgrin:

[McKenzie]

3. Questions one and two are inter-related MrScorpio

Bush has violated the US Constitution and his actions have caused mass civilian casualties. A quick read of Indictment (spelling?) 1, Count 1 as prepared for the Nuremberg Tribunal after WW2 makes it clear that there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing to justify charges being brought. Whether they are crimes against humanity charges or impeachment charges is a moot point but the central point is that there is clear evidence of wrong doing. If we accept that premise then there is liiltle doubt that inaction is not an option if democracy and the rule of law, including upholding the Constitution, are to be maintained.

I think most decent people would accept that action IS necessary regardless which would lead to answering "yes" to your Q1. However, those who might answer yes to Q1 might realise that impeachment might not work without investigations leading them to lean towards the route propsed in Q2.

The real question seems to be one of strategy rather than principle.

[SeattleGirl]

4. #2: O&I. The most logical choice, IMO.

As I've said before, there are many, MANY things the Republicans, and not just Bush, have done that need to be investigated, and that is what I have been saying for the past couple of days. I'm not against impeachment either, but to jump on it right away would be to take the wrong course. First, it WOULD look vindictive. Second, and most importantly, we don't have enough solid information -- unimpeachable information, if you'll pardon the pun -- to bring a solid case for impeachment.

In the field I work in, there are tons of laws that govern it. The people I deal with have, in many cases, the right to protest my recommendations, and sometimes those protests end up at a court of appeals. The very first thing I was taught, and it's a lesson that has held up well for almost 17 years, is that every recommendation I make must be made with the idea that I will have to defend it in court. Doesn't matter if I like or dislike a client. That does not play into it at all. The most important thing is that I do my job within the laws, as they apply to my profession. And ladies and gentlemen, I HAVE had to go to the board of appeals and, under oath, defend my work. And guess what? I've never lost. My work has always been upheld. The same is true where impeachment is concerned. Yes, we do have some solid information to support impeachment, but we need more. And, by starting investigations into different things, we will gather that information. Will Bush ultimately be impeached? I don't know. But I do know that if the Dems are diligent, if they investigate -- along with working simultaneously to right the Ship of State -- we will be a lot more successful, in fact and in the eyes of We The People, than we would if the newly minted majority Dems threw everything off the table but impeachment.

[lapfog_1]

5. We should hold hearings and investigations first.

BUT, with all deliberate speed. Lives depend on it. This person occupying the white house is likely borderline insane. The war and the killing in Iraq will not end if he is left in office.

Take for example, today's meetings. One day after holding a press conference where he says "I get it. The American people have spoken. We will move forward in a bi-partisan fashion on a range of issues" what does he DO? He invites the lame duck Congressional leadership over to discuss HOW TO RAM HIS ULTRA-RIGHT agenda through in the last 3 or 4 weeks of this Congress and get his neocon appointments confirmed. Unbelievable? Well, not really, George has a long history of saying what people expect and then doing the exact opposite. His arrogance knows no boundaries. It's like we caught the thief red-handed, under the full light of public examination and judgment, but, out on bond before the sentence is imposed, he steals again and doesn't care that anyone sees him. Hubris and arrogance have marked his entire life, why should we expect any difference now? And so it will be once the new Congress is sworn in... oh, he won't get anything new in terms of assaults on the constitution... but if any here expect a "chastened" President, eager to seek compromise or even undo some of the outrages that he perpetrated on the American public, when said American public so clearly made it known that they want him to change course, to undo things... he will ignore them, the new Congress and anyone else that disagrees with him. He speaks to God. He is the Decider. He firmly believes that he is doing the right thing. And he won't stop over some trivial thing like an election. And he will "charmingly" lie about it to "get people off his back" constantly. So... don't expect any change in the war in Iraq... his policy is still stay the course no matter what he says. The only way to stop him is to remove him from office, possibly by force this time. I believe him to be really that insane. I know, sounds paranoid, but unlike conspiracy theories about this or that... I'm just going by 6 years of the same behavior.

[MGD]

6. kick

:kick:

[OneBlueSky]

7. impeachment IS a political action . . . it's not about justice . . .

impeachment results in removal from office, and that's it . . . no jail time, no fines, nothing else . . . if we want justice -- and I certainly do -- we need to bring the perpetrators of crimes before U.S. and international courts . . . impeachment does NOT accomplish that . . .

let's investigate, collect evidence, build the case and, when the time is right, bring these people before the appropriate courts for trial and punishment . . . if we initiate impeachment proceedings, they will consume the government and the country for the next two years -- time better devoted to proving to the American people that Democrats can govern effectively . . .

and even if successful, removal from office via impeachment wouldn't happen until their terms are pretty much over anyhow . . . so why waste the time and energy when there is SO-O-O-O-O much else that needs doing? . . .

[Apollo11]

8. Not a smart move

I don't totally object to impeachment (personally - I believe Bush is an illegitimate President installed by the SCOTUS) - but I'm just not sure it would be a smart move.

Bush & Cheney did a lot of crazy $hit in their first term, but still most people (not everyone) believes they won re-election in 2004. So a lot of people (not me) believe that Bush has a "mandate" and is a "legitimate" POTUS.

Also don't forget a lot of Dems in Congress voted for a lot of Bush's policies - like the Attack on Iraq and the PATRIOT Act. A lot of so-called "moderate" Dem Senators and Congress(wo)men would be reluctant to impeach Bush.

I am afraid that going for impeachment would (a) be impossible to get through the Senate and (b) help the Republicans come back stronger in 2008 - probably keep the Whitehouse.

I know 2 years seems like a long time, but everything Democrats do should be part of a strategy to win in 2008: make more gains in the House and Senate and take back the Whitehouse.

At this point - I don't see how going down the road of failed impeachment helps Dems win in 08.

More importantly - Dean and Pelosi (and most Dem leaders) have come to the conclusion that it's not the best approach. I am inclined to go along with their judgement on this one.

[B Calm]

9. I want to see the SOB's to testify under oath!

[BelgianMadCow]

10. not to mention alone

heh

heheh

hehehe

[Laelth]

11. The evidence is already sufficient. See below.

Admittedly, thorough investigations would be fun ... vindictive, cruel, mean ... but I don't think they're necessary.

Here's why: (Shamelessly cribbed from another DU poster)

The President's High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Isn't that enough? I mean, really. We know what happened, and we know what laws have been violated. Investigations are just to sway public opinion in our favor before we have the courage to bring charges. The cowardice of that bothers me a bit.

:patriot:

-Laelth